“However, providing
service to others is not an unproblematic undertaking. For the exhibition of historical information
to contribute to humanistic education, it must involve information that other people
want and need. This is a tricky
proposition. Those who have information
to display typically control the form and content of its presentation, and they
may have the power and resources to impose their conception of ‘needed
information’ on others. This dominance
is a particular problem within the exhibition stance because it is less
obvious: Analysis, identification, and moral response are easily recognized as
social constructions, but information that is simply displayed can take on the
appearance of a natural, inevitable, or objective representation of the
world. It appears to ‘mirror’ historical
reality rather than interpret it.” (p. 121)
Barton, K. and Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
In chapter 6 of their work Teaching History for the Common Good Keith Barton and Linda Levstik
address the tendency to “exhibit” history without actually doing the historical
work of making connections and drawing conclusions. They aim to draw a distinction between
history and trivia. The chapter acknowledges
the personal fulfillment that one can experience when “displaying” historical
facts and does not completely condemn the urge to partake in such
displays. However, Barton and Levstik do
warn of the dangers of confusing that sort of treatment of history with
authentic academic work, especially in terms of accountability tests. This passage examines the role of historical
exhibition as service to others. The
authors note that while the perspective of the exhibitioner might be fairly
easy to discern when speaking with another person, it is much less obvious when
looking at an historical reenactment or museum collection. They argue that when information is presented
in a way that appears neutral, it is very likely that viewers will accept the
view forwarded by the exhibitioner without much thought. While the creators of the exhibition might
not be aware of any agenda underlying their presentation, they do make
deliberate decisions regarding which artifacts, events, and information to
include and which to exclude. These
choices impact the audience’s perception of whatever the exhibition displays. Barton and Levstik insist that we must be
aware of these decisions and to consider them as we experience historical
exhibition.
This passage reminded me of a museum I visited half a dozen
times over the two years I lived in South India. I remembered an exhibition that always struck
me as odd due precisely to its seeming neutrality on a subject I would have
thought would have been presented with commentary. The museum at Fort St. George in Chennai
includes a collection of British military uniforms and other artifacts dating
from imperial control under the Raj (http://asi.nic.in/asi_museums_chennai.asp). The curators of the exhibit chose not to include
any commentary on the artifacts but merely provided information on the
provenance of the items. Visitors walk
through a dimly lit, century-old officer’s residence, peering into cases of
kilts, wool jackets, bearskin hats, dainty china with floral patterns, and
etched silver tea sets. Each time I saw
those heavy uniforms and totally impractical serving ware, all I could think
was “how can the exhibitioners, who work for the current Indian military, not
mention how ridiculous it was for their former colonial rulers to bring wool
and silver to a humid coastal town that never sees temperatures below the
mid-seventies?”. I am still not quite
sure what their silence on the preposterous effort by soldiers to try to
recreate Britain in a tropical climate, but the utter lack of narrative made me
very aware of the choice. Barton and
Levstik’s chapter on displaying history made me think of the Fort St. George
museum and reminded me that curators’ choices are not always so obvious. It encourages me to better prepare students
before going to a museum. I have already
thought about talking to students about what they will see and preparing them
for a visit to a place like the Holocaust Museum where they might encounter
difficult images or information.
Likewise, I have taught lessons in which I ask students to consider
perspectives presented by primary and secondary source documents we examine in
class. This passage showed me that I
should urge my students to ask the same questions about exhibitions of history
which appear “neutral”. I should ask
them to think about how and why certain information is presented, analyzing a
museum exhibition like they would any secondary source. Now that I have thought about Barton and
Levstik’s chapter, their suggestion seems obvious. I just needed them to highlight the obvious
for me.
